I suppose that it may now be considered "quaint" to discuss something once discussed in
high school Government classes as " the social contract". In its simplest form, the social contract provided that we will defer to our elected government to assert certain of our rights on our behalf.
Instead of personally seeking to punish those who might steal from us, assault us or keep us awake with their blaring outdoor stereo speakers, we agree to call the police and let them fine or imprison the offenders.
Instead of personally---and possibly forcibly---taking cash and valuables from the home or business of someone who owes us money, we agree to file a lawsuit and have the courts enforce our judgment and collect our debt.
This all works out so long as most have faith that most of the time, the government will enforce our rights for us and that justice, that sacred concept which we Americans consider our birthright, will be done. That faith, it seems to me, is wearing awfully thin.
If our government is truly looking out for us and seeking justice on our behalf, why does the income of those who shower after work get taxed at a higher rate than those who shower before their day begins? Where is the "justice" in the special treatment for capital gains or "shelters" or "carryovers"? Why is an executive's lunch that costs $300 a tax deduction but a carpenter's lunch that costs $7 is not? Why is 100% of a secretary's annual income subject to social security withholding but less than 1% of some hedge fund managers is?
And, of course, all the above is on top of the glaring discrepancies in how our society treats whites and people of color; gays and straights; men and women; young and old; rich and poor.
Are we approaching a point where "self help" is seen as justified by the failures of government to insure our safety and protect our dignity?
= new reply since forum marked as read
